Page 1 of 2

M$ files patent on XML

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 11:22 am
by Yoghurt
Let's hope we will never store formatting attributes in our XMLs:

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/40020.htm

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:20 pm
by Zanzibar
That is totally bogus, and microsoft should know it. If whoever handles the patents half-way knows his stuff, then it'll get thrown out. Just because you file for a patent doesn't mean it has to be granted. :D

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:20 pm
by Yoghurt
Yes, but we have to remember that the EPA (as well as the USPO) has granted patents on
  • Progress-bars
  • Overlaying two images using XOR
  • Archiving of e-mail (because of storing the date the message was created)
  • and my favourite: the if-statement ;)
  • and many more...

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:16 am
by leiavoia
I like the fact they are trying to patent something that sounds exactly like OpenOffice - XML formatted word processor documents. Maybe they are getting scared.

Re: M$ files patent on XML

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:52 am
by a_claudiu
Yoghurt wrote:Let's hope we will never store formatting attributes in our XMLs:

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/40020.htm
Only if you want to store the information in the Word xml document format.

Re: M$ files patent on XML

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:09 pm
by Yoghurt
a_claudiu wrote:Only if you want to store the information in the Word xml document format.
Nope. If the patent would be granted (which I fear is possible) any XML document format used by Word-Processors would be property of MS, Including OpenOffice.org's

Re: M$ files patent on XML

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:09 pm
by a_claudiu
Yoghurt wrote:
a_claudiu wrote:Only if you want to store the information in the Word xml document format.
Nope. If the patent would be granted (which I fear is possible) any XML document format used by Word-Processors would be property of MS, Including OpenOffice.org's
Acording to my knoledge of stupid american patent laws the patent will be granted anyway even if it's valid or not, is more a matter of registration fees.
If it's valid or not this is another story. The patents are not valid if it is proven that at that time that technology or idea is already used. If not I can have a fun ideea of patenting the Newton law, the ligth bulb, the hammer or ...

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:13 am
by Zanzibar
Too late... light bulb's already patented to Thomas Edison.

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:38 am
by Tyreth
Zanzibar wrote:Too late... light bulb's already patented to Thomas Edison.
He said the Ligth Bulb, it's a completely different thing :wink:

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm
by Yoghurt
Tyreth, talking about stupid patent laws, what was the name of the guy again that patented the wheel in australia? ;)

(No offence)

Maybe we should patent the idea of a 4X-Space-exploration game

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:48 pm
by Tyreth
I'd never heard that, but sure enough, google (great repository of all knowledge) showed the answer:
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_341943.html

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:27 am
by skdiw
some guy patented cherry flavored condoms. Another guy patented purple-red visor for blind ppl over 40.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:36 pm
by jbarcz1
Hmmm, according to the link the patent was filed in the European Union and New Zealand, but not the US

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:45 am
by Moonsword
I just started reading this thread. I was wondering when someone was going to point out that this wasn't under American jurisdiction.

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:05 pm
by Yoghurt
Moonsword wrote:I just started reading this thread. I was wondering when someone was going to point out that this wasn't under American jurisdiction.
I want to point out that this wan't under American jurisdiction.

SCNR ;)